Presence‐absence versus presence‐only modelling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability

Presence‐absence versus presence‐only modelling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability Habitat suitability models can be generated using methods requiring information on species presence or species presence and absence. Knowledge of the predictive performance of such methods becomes a critical issue to establish their optimal scope of application for mapping current species distributions under different constraints. Here, we use breeding bird atlas data in Catalonia as a working example and attempt to analyse the relative performance of two methods: the Ecological Niche factor Analysis (ENFA) using presence data only and Generalised Linear Models (GLM) using presence/absence data. Models were run on a set of forest species with similar habitat requirements, but with varying occurrence rates (prevalence) and niche positions (marginality). Our results support the idea that GLM predictions are more accurate than those obtained with ENFA. This was particularly true when species were using available habitats proportionally to their suitability, making absence data reliable and useful to enhance model calibration. Species marginality in niche space was also correlated to predictive accuracy, i.e. species with less restricted ecological requirements were modelled less accurately than species with more restricted requirements. This pattern was irrespective of the method employed. Models for wide‐ranging and tolerant species were more sensitive to absence data, suggesting that presence/absence methods may be particularly important for predicting distributions of this type of species. We conclude that modellers should consider that species ecological characteristics are critical in determining the accuracy of models and that it is difficult to predict generalist species distributions accurately and this is independent of the method used. Being based on distinct approaches regarding adjustment to data and data quality, habitat distribution modelling methods cover different application areas, making it difficult to identify one that should be universally applicable. Our results suggest however, that if absence data is available, methods using this information should be preferably used in most situations. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Ecography Wiley

Presence‐absence versus presence‐only modelling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/presence-absence-versus-presence-only-modelling-methods-for-predicting-DzcG10etEa
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0906-7590
eISSN
1600-0587
DOI
10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.03764.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Habitat suitability models can be generated using methods requiring information on species presence or species presence and absence. Knowledge of the predictive performance of such methods becomes a critical issue to establish their optimal scope of application for mapping current species distributions under different constraints. Here, we use breeding bird atlas data in Catalonia as a working example and attempt to analyse the relative performance of two methods: the Ecological Niche factor Analysis (ENFA) using presence data only and Generalised Linear Models (GLM) using presence/absence data. Models were run on a set of forest species with similar habitat requirements, but with varying occurrence rates (prevalence) and niche positions (marginality). Our results support the idea that GLM predictions are more accurate than those obtained with ENFA. This was particularly true when species were using available habitats proportionally to their suitability, making absence data reliable and useful to enhance model calibration. Species marginality in niche space was also correlated to predictive accuracy, i.e. species with less restricted ecological requirements were modelled less accurately than species with more restricted requirements. This pattern was irrespective of the method employed. Models for wide‐ranging and tolerant species were more sensitive to absence data, suggesting that presence/absence methods may be particularly important for predicting distributions of this type of species. We conclude that modellers should consider that species ecological characteristics are critical in determining the accuracy of models and that it is difficult to predict generalist species distributions accurately and this is independent of the method used. Being based on distinct approaches regarding adjustment to data and data quality, habitat distribution modelling methods cover different application areas, making it difficult to identify one that should be universally applicable. Our results suggest however, that if absence data is available, methods using this information should be preferably used in most situations.

Journal

EcographyWiley

Published: Aug 1, 2004

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off